About your Search

20121113
20121113
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)
. igor, back to more serious stuff we ought to be talking about. so john boehner is saying hey we can have -- we can find some common ground here and republicans are quick to say yeah, let's follow the boehner thing. when you look at what boehner is saying about how to avoid the fiscal cliff he's not saying we're going to agree with president obama on anything yet right? >> not yet. at least publicly, he's just reheating the old romney proposal which is if you close deductions, that's where you get your revenue. not from letting the high end tax cuts expire. the high-end tax cuts expire. what obama had been campaigning on and what voters want overwhelmingly. so you know, the administration has actually been fairly optimistic about where boehner is and negotiating with boehner and negotiating maybe with some of the rank and file who are more likely to come to an agreement. maybe go into the senate. and doing this very publicly. they're meeting with a lot of groups with labor groups, with business groups and they've
the general election, john boehner said they would continue to staunchly oppose tax rate increases, but on sunday. bill kristolly to republican house members it's not just them versus the president, it's them versus history. >> i think republicans will have to give in much more than they think. four presidents in the last election vo won 50% of the vote twice. roosevelt, eisenhower, reagan, and obama. republicans in the house will be able to get some concessions, but i think there will be a big budget deal next year, and it will be much moran obama budget deal than paul ryan budget deal. elections have consequences. karen capehart, did you expect anything this big this fast? bill kristol is influential with republicans in washington. i'm stunned with what i'm hearing? >> i almost fell out of my chair when boehner said revenues. the idea of increasing revenues. that's a central argument that we have been having over the last four years, and the very expensive i told you so i guess. if we're going to get to this problem, we have to deal with revenues, we can't just do it all on the s
point -- that speaker boehner showed yesterday in his remarks. he basically said that the president won the election, and he should lead. he basically, he said that he was open to revenues. which is, which many in his own party disagree with. um, so i thought the tone was the right thing. now, you know, you can't expect the speaker to turn on a dime in 24 hours and embrace everything; higher taxes, higher taxes on the wealthy. but i think that privately he's seen the handwriting on the wall, and it makes me very hopeful that we can do something big in the next month and a half. it's a good first step. um, i would say two things, though, in relation to it. when you unpack the speaker's speech, there is a premise that doesn't quite work, and we're going to have to help him move others in the republican party away from it. it's called -- part of his speech he talked about dynamic scoring. this idea that if you cut taxes, you will increase revenues. well, it's about time we debunked that myth. it's a rumpelstiltskin fairy tale, dynamic scoring. if you may remember, rumpelstiltskin was the f
speaker boehner said and said, look, let's work on closing these loopholes and deductions. that is common ground. there's no reason why -- >> that would raise taxes on people. this is where you get this fight in the republican party. because if your taxes go up but your tax rate doesn't go up, is that a sell republicans can live with? >> it depends how it's mixed up. we don't want to raise the tax rate. if you're closing loopholes and broadening the base, lowering the rate, then i think we could get there. >> you signed groemp norquist's pledge i'm going to assume because pretty much every congressman did. >> yes. >> would you be fine doing a compromise where you would go against your signature on that pledge. if you felt there was a compromise on the table -- >> i do not -- i do not -- >> to the pledge -- dramatic, wasn't it? >> it was dramatic. >> but i need these notes so i'm going to put them back like that. >> i do not intend to do that. i want to fight for the principles i believe in. i, too, was elected, and i think that's part of the give and take. >> grover norquist was not elect
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)